Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: recurring events are expanded into per-occurrence entries with ids of the form series id + '-rid-' + start, notes are markdown, and times follow the calendar timezone unless tz is set. It does not mention result caps or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then return-shape behavior, then timezone handling, then the HTTP endpoint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and it does so well (occurrence expansion, id format, markdown notes). The only gap is the absence of any statement about result limits or pagination, which matters for a range-listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the 366-day constraint and the tz default. The description only lightly reinforces the tz/timezone behavior, adding little beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List the events in a date range, optionally only on some sub-calendars.' This distinguishes it from generic siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with teamup_search_events or teamup_list_changed_events, which are the closest alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the date-range scoping and the optional sub-calendar filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to siblings such as teamup_search_events for keyword lookups or teamup_list_changed_events for incremental sync.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.